The trademark “SPOTIFY” opposes the registration of the trademark “POTIFY.”
Another example has arisen in which a brand is dissatisfied with the registration of another brand’s trademark and files a challenge. A cannabis dispensary software startup attempted to register the trademark ‘Potify,’ which drew the wrath of Spotify, a popular music streaming network. For a final decision, the matter was returned to the drawing board. The US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has ruled in favour of Spotify, rejecting the registration application for ‘Potify.’ “Potify was supposed to be that software also having scope for selling clothes merch, offering customer information in the realm of medical marijuana clinic inventories and locations, forums, and more,” according to their opinion.
Spotify, on the other hand, has other plans, and the reason for this is clear. The document’s ‘Potify’ branding is phonetically, graphically, and psychologically similar to Spotify’s. The Potify team simply skipped the ‘S’ and circle logo, opting instead to start with a lower-case ‘p’. Attorney Kevin Davis represented Spotify in the case seeking clearance for the ‘Potify’ trademark application.
The company also supplied a slew of data demonstrating why US Software Inc. should not be allowed to get away with it at any costs, including the fact that it has held the mark ‘Spotify’ for nearly 13 years and has now achieved the status of a well-known brand. The rationale concluded that approving the application would dilute the Spotify brand and cause the company to lose its individuality in conjunction with the term ‘Potify.’
“The only distinction between applicant’s mark POTIFY and opposer’s mark SPOTIFY is that opposer’s starts with a ‘S,’ right before the shared letters P-O-T-I-F-Y,” wrote Administrative Law Judge Michael B Adlin. In the other words, even as opposer points out, the petitioner simply erased the opposer’s mark’s leading ‘S.’ The logos have a remarkable resemblance.”
Surprisingly, US Software Inc. CEO Gusein Suleimanov and COO Ivan Suslov continued to claim that they came up with the name Potify and that they were not inspired by Spotify or anything related to Spotify in any way, and that the Spotify name was not even on their minds when they came up with the name. In such circumstances, the characteristics that make a mark unique and distinctive are highlighted. Similarly, these cases will be added to the list of precedents that can be used to determine if a mark is phonetically similar and so unsuitable for registration.